Rotating Header Image


After watching the four-minute-plus interview with Michelle Obama on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” I counted no more than approximately five/seven full eye-blinks and a number of partial blinks (half-lowered fluttering eyelids but not full blinks) by Michelle Obama; the woman is anything but mesmerizing and to the contrary, continues to present a frightening presence.

I also watched this afternoon’s Bill O’Reilly broadcast with special attention to the “Body Language” segment (one of my favorites); the professional opinion from the “body language expert” is non-judgmental about the absence of blinking, but O’Reilly mirrors my concerns as to what the absence of blinking by Michelle Obama “means” otherwise — I think the body language expert got this wrong because Michelle Obama’s non-blinking, steely persistent and wide-eyed-open staring is utterly abnormal. What abnormality it represents, that’s the issue. But it is indicative of mental abnormality and/or psychological aberration.

In my view, it represents extreme dominance and what I mean by that, is that it’s not credible dominance (as in, leadership) but aggression attempting to be dominant (as in, not leadership; perhaps, even, threating). It’s a very big red flag as to who this person actually is — and also reason to consider the possibility that Michelle Obama’s displaying some abnormal physical behaviors due to drug side-effects; in the case of wide-open non-blinking eyes, that’s indicative of an amphetamine or hyper-active-inducing drug of some sort.

For balance, there’s this segment from Greta Van Susteren (Susteren interviews the editor of MARIE CLARE magazine about their interview with Barack Obama – “the wife” is emphasized in both).

275wde_HuffnPo-Hypn-O-Sis_BodySurfin I searched the news otherwise from this past week and spliced-in between the media hounding the Obama’s so-called-vacation-while-raising-funds-in-Hawaii with panting questions — about, oh, the second hand on their watches — I find a number of links to Barack Obama’s complaints about FOX News, as he alleges, as being responsible for creating a bad rap about his wife, MIchelle. Obama gets more publicity by talking about himself, when he isn’t talking about his wife and blaming anyone else for not talking about both of them enough or well enough or at all — for that, there are always the gossip blogs among the Left, who can be counted on to promote themselves and the Obamas (and Oprah, et al.) while hatin’-on the Right.

He opines:

“I think that if you’ve been watching Fox News then probably she’s been misunderstood because I do think there’s been a fairly systematic attempt by the conservative press to paint her in a completely false way. Michelle is very comfortable in her own skin and I like that skin, of course. So I don’t want her changing and I don’t think she’s looking to change. Michelle’s not somebody who wants to be deeply involved in policy development.”

(Violins here.)

I agree with Karl Rove from his comments on FOX (August 11, 2008), and that is, that, there is meaning (validity, cause) in criticizing Michelle Obama — and I dismiss the Left’s attempts to duck down a rabbit hole about Michelle Obama from whence they yell about Conservatives “attacking Michelle.”

To the contrary, it’d be an act of “self-attack” by this nation not to critically evaluate Michelle Obama (even if she was as moderate and modest as imaginable but in her specific case, she’s not only demonstratively politically Left but has also devoted a great deal of her life to that pursuit.) Michelle Obama’s history literally disproves Obama’s allegation that she “does not want to be…involved in policy development.” And that statement by Obama (above quoted in-full) is yet another one of those wiggle-waggle expressions from Obama wherein he can certainly have it mean anything he may want it to (“deeply involved in policy” and thus, almost certainly, be “involved in policy development”, the ever-splitable Obama-terms-to-infinity).

Michelle Obama deserves the bad reputation she has made for herself based upon herself. I can’t say anything decent about her character other than she’s raising children and is a mother and is married. Beyond that, she’s a bad person in my view, based upon who she is. In her own words, in other words, she’s condemnable in reference to the White House.

So this is no aimless person in Michelle Obama, and it is misleading for her to be lauded by the Left, so the Left defends her, as being an “outspoken woman” — it’s wrong to extend her special privilege to offend if not threaten, based upon her gender and to attempt to bury or suppress the specifics about who this person (though female) is: a socio-politically-radical, specifically antagonistic socio-politically motivated person in conflict with a great deal of what our nation is about.

The only enthusiastic comments I’ve yet to read about Michelle Obama are from associated media and from her husband (understandable, but, he’s identifiable by his associations and he should be man enough to understand that, that he’ll be evaluated by his relationships, including as to his activist wife) and from other persons who share in Michelle Obama’s beliefs — who are involved in Black racial supremacy movements or hold those beliefs.

In other words, she’s being promoted by Black racial supremacists (among all races, people who seem to think that because she’s Black, because her husband is Black, that that somehow bestows upon her/them some special advantage — to support and enjoy her/them because they’re Black; while I see no reason to reject them because she/they are Black, there is also no reason to woo either for that reason, that reason alone, unless one is racially motivated).

But the “zombie-staredown” Michelle Obama just enacted on ABC today is more than enough to concern me.

Dot-Red-SML This article is exeptionally ghastly:

Obama More Alpha Than McCain.” The writer of this piece must really, really believe that TRANSFORMERS was a true story — she obviously is far too easy to please with any tidbit of information about anyone with two legs, two ears and, well, that’s about it, she’s pleased.

“Alphas” don’t hang-out on the beach and smoke dope, including crack-cocaine (but Obama has – and because his medical records are forbidden to anyone’s review, there’s no way to know what substances he may continue to be using), are not lost for anything meaningful if not cogent to say without prepared speeches (but Obama is), do not limit visits with troops on “international jaunts” to grabbing “a few of them” to play basketball with so he can have some neat photos taken (but Obama has – the list of depressing character failures by Obama is extensive here but the Left is impervious to them).

It’s horrible to think that, to the Left, Barack is “alpha.” Leaves me wondering just how they have come to so confuse so many terms to such extents (“up” is “down,” “down” is “up,” “alpha” is a dog food, etc.). And, anyway, aren’t (actual) alpha males those men the Left so hates and ridicules? You know, the ones who win the wars (and fight them), shoot guns, don’t like shopping, guard the remote, like to plot and plan and compete and…

So, overall, the media continues to fawn and mist over these two people, Barack and the wife; perhaps this will provide more incentive to people to run in the opposite direction — at least, to smart people.

Dot-Red-SML Here are some very interesting “screen shots that Obama doesn’t want you to see.”

Dot-Red-SML Michelle Obama supports partial birth abortion.

Dot-Red-SML Michelle Obama’s Princeton University thesis says her primary commitment is to the Black community, not to all Americans. (This is consistent with Barack Obama’s Black Nationalism as described in “Dreams From My Father”);


Dot-Red-SML Michelle Obama’s Partial-Birth Abortion Fundraising Letter

C O M M E N T S : now closed